First and foremost (and in keeping with the original topic), the GOP is in a period of transition and that's a good thing. As Pablo likes to say, Coke or Pepsi? The GOP is becoming more conservative while the Dems are becoming more socialist. That's a fact, but politicos will attempt to blur that distinction. Because of that, there is only one clear choice for true Americans.

While the Coke or Pepsi question may have been apt four years ago, it isn't any longer, but I'll admit that the GOP has a long ways to go to remove that similarity. That's why conservatives like myself are attempting to reform the GOP from within while simultaneously booting the Dems out of office. It's a long process and it won't happen overnight. Be patient.

As for my previous personal attacks, that's just my new demeanor and one of the reasons why I left this site as a regular member. I could no longer restrict myself to the board rules. It's no denunciation upon the liberal members of this site as much as it is my pure hatred of liberals on the other sites I frequent. I can no longer be civilized while reading their BS, so I've adopted their Saul Alinsky rules. Payback is a bitch. With that said, I refuse to apologize for them.

To I.E., I recognize that you're an intelligent person (unlike most Obama supporters), but why do you continue to support him? If memory serves, you criticized Bush for the Patriot Act and the two wars, but where is the criticism for engagement in Libya or Obama's continuation and enhancement of Bush's anti-terror policies? Hypocrisy much? Or is it only right when a Democrat does the exact same thing? A little consistency would be nice.

As for the increases in the stock market, that's because of QE1, QE2, and QE3. The printing money out of thin air philosophy adopted by Bernanke doesn't go to the people. It goes directly to the Federal Reserve, which then sends it to the major banks. Wake up, people. Even I.E. would acknowledge this if he were being honest.

The truth of the matter is that Romney (whom I'm not a huge supporter of ) will win this election. Most of you only see the polls that the corrupt media announces (supporting Obama), while I see the "real" data. The internals tell the true story, so you have to dig deep to find the reality of the situation. I do that, while the corrupt media does not, and I suspect, most of you as well refuse to dig deeper. Your loss.

Furthermore, despite what IE said, the Tea Party isn't a bunch of extremeists. We are common sense conservative Americans who believe in our founding principles. I doubt that many of you have read the Federalist Papers, but I have. I suggest that you do likewise before spewing "talking points". It just might open your eyes about what this country is about.

_________________

October 14th, 2012, 8:00 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Quote:

so I've adopted their Saul Alinsky rules.

You haven't at all.

I've read Rules for Radicals. Twice. One of Alinksy's key points is to keep a civil discourse going to win people over to your side.

Blueskies, with all due respect, many of the followers of Alinsky prefer this passage:

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

I personally prefer his 5th rule:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

You see, I turn their rules against them and civil discourse has got nothing to do with it. While Alinsky may have preached that aspect, many of his followers have foresaken it, as have I. Just look at Obama, Steff Cutter, and David Axelrod as prime examples. Ya gotta use what works for you and Rule #5 works for me.

More importantly, I've used Alinsky's tactics to expose the truth about Obama's corruption and lies to well over 100 people thus far. And I'm just getting started. So stick it where your gay marriage loving buttcheeks won't shine. Unless of course, they are so enlarged by repeated bangings that a semi could drive through it.

_________________

October 15th, 2012, 3:59 am

WarEr4Christ

QB Coach

Joined: October 26th, 2005, 11:48 pmPosts: 3039Location: Elkhart, In.

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

and with that, um, note, welcome back Sly. The porn hounds have missed you!

_________________2 Chronicles 10:14, "if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land."

October 15th, 2012, 10:42 am

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

slybri19 wrote:

Blueskies, with all due respect, many of the followers of Alinsky prefer this passage:

"A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."

I personally prefer his 5th rule:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

You see, I turn their rules against them and civil discourse has got nothing to do with it. While Alinsky may have preached that aspect, many of his followers have foresaken it, as have I. Just look at Obama, Steff Cutter, and David Axelrod as prime examples. Ya gotta use what works for you and Rule #5 works for me.

More importantly, I've used Alinsky's tactics to expose the truth about Obama's corruption and lies to well over 100 people thus far. And I'm just getting started. So stick it where your gay marriage loving buttcheeks won't shine. Unless of course, they are so enlarged by repeated bangings that a semi could drive through it.

Alinsky was an organizer. Meaning, his whole goal was to bring people together to create change. (He was a leftist, but he wasn't a Marxist...in the opening chapter of Rules he specifically calls out those who want socialism as children who cannot accept the adult responsibilities of having to care for oneself.)

Alinsky, writing in the 60s, hated hippy protesters who wore their hair long. Why? Because it instantly and artificially turned people off to the message. There's one part where he says if you want to get Orthodox Jews on your side you don't walk into a Temple eating a ham sandwich. In the later chapters of Rules, he repeatedly urges his fellow "radicals" to reach out and make ties with the low-middle white class -- he admits that many of his intended audience (upper class liberals) would hate these people and the values they held, but he maintained that creating change was all about winning people over and organizing them to fight on your side.

You do not subscribe to that at all. You are a divider.

And no, Romney will lose.

Of course, the greatest thing about this election is that only one of these guys can win.

October 15th, 2012, 7:05 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Quote:

I personally prefer his 5th rule:

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

You see, I turn their rules against them and civil discourse has got nothing to do with it. While Alinsky may have preached that aspect, many of his followers have foresaken it, as have I. Just look at Obama, Steff Cutter, and David Axelrod as prime examples. Ya gotta use what works for you and Rule #5 works for me.

Again, you're missing the boat here.

Ridiculing someone means making fun of them to such an extent that they no longer get taken seriously. Once people can't take you seriously, you can't win. Ridiculing someone effectively should never be confused with insulting them and calling them names. Insulting =/= ridiculing.

I only bump this to add this point because today, all over the internet, you can find fine examples of this rule at work. Primarily over Romney and his "binder full of women" comment. Liberals have created a plethora of jokes intended to degrade Romney and make him look like a fool. Observe:

First and foremost (and in keeping with the original topic), the GOP is in a period of transition and that's a good thing. As Pablo likes to say, Coke or Pepsi? The GOP is becoming more conservative while the Dems are becoming more socialist. That's a fact, but politicos will attempt to blur that distinction. Because of that, there is only one clear choice for true Americans.

While the Coke or Pepsi question may have been apt four years ago, it isn't any longer, but I'll admit that the GOP has a long ways to go to remove that similarity. That's why conservatives like myself are attempting to reform the GOP from within while simultaneously booting the Dems out of office. It's a long process and it won't happen overnight. Be patient.

As for my previous personal attacks, that's just my new demeanor and one of the reasons why I left this site as a regular member. I could no longer restrict myself to the board rules. It's no denunciation upon the liberal members of this site as much as it is my pure hatred of liberals on the other sites I frequent. I can no longer be civilized while reading their BS, so I've adopted their Saul Alinsky rules. Payback is a bitch. With that said, I refuse to apologize for them.

To I.E., I recognize that you're an intelligent person (unlike most Obama supporters), but why do you continue to support him? If memory serves, you criticized Bush for the Patriot Act and the two wars, but where is the criticism for engagement in Libya or Obama's continuation and enhancement of Bush's anti-terror policies? Hypocrisy much? Or is it only right when a Democrat does the exact same thing? A little consistency would be nice.

As for the increases in the stock market, that's because of QE1, QE2, and QE3. The printing money out of thin air philosophy adopted by Bernanke doesn't go to the people. It goes directly to the Federal Reserve, which then sends it to the major banks. Wake up, people. Even I.E. would acknowledge this if he were being honest.

The truth of the matter is that Romney (whom I'm not a huge supporter of ) will win this election. Most of you only see the polls that the corrupt media announces (supporting Obama), while I see the "real" data. The internals tell the true story, so you have to dig deep to find the reality of the situation. I do that, while the corrupt media does not, and I suspect, most of you as well refuse to dig deeper. Your loss.

Furthermore, despite what IE said, the Tea Party isn't a bunch of extremeists. We are common sense conservative Americans who believe in our founding principles. I doubt that many of you have read the Federalist Papers, but I have. I suggest that you do likewise before spewing "talking points". It just might open your eyes about what this country is about.

I've read the Federalist Papers... during a stretch where I was very alarmed about the Patriot Act (still am). Yes - that is one area where I'm not pleased about what Obama did. It isnt' hypocritical - that has been a disappointment. But that doesn't mean I'd throw out the baby with the bathwater. I'm hoping he'll do more things to unwind Bush's mess in the next term. That's the case for the Patriot Act stuff, Guantanamo, and also - importantly - financial regulation. There is a reason why Obama is losing favor with Wall Street, in spite of the market's performance over the past few years getting them their giant bonuses... it is because they know that more regulation is coming. Like near-reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Obama is the only guy that would pursue something like that. The darwinist Republicans would just allow us to be set up for more economic bubbles and crashes. I don't see that as being "conservative" - I see it as being stupid, in rejecting sound lessons we learned after the first great depression. I know that doesn't fit with your "if you want to regulate business at all, you must have communist aspirations" strawman ... but reality is that business is optimal when there isn't uncertainty, and lack of rules causes uncertainty. Just like our government has been successful because of balances of power, a proper balance of power between business and people is also a good thing.

I'm supporting Obama because he's moderate. I don't expect you to agree to that, because it doesn't serve your interests. But the truth is the people who call him a socialist or communist are silly - many of Obama's policies have been very moderate, and even continuation of many of Bush's policies (as you yourself pointed out here). Dispite the BS flying out there, Obama has been business friendly (he has regulated them less than Bush!). There's a ton of misinformation out there, that is repeated by people who know nothing or have ulterior motives. But I'm not a person who knows nothing - I'm highly informed, and that is incovenient for some people.

I'm supporting Obama because his policies and work with the Fed (monetary policy) have so far successfully avoided the great depression II that was looking inevitable only 4 years ago. Like Romney says, China has long been a currency manipulator. QE is not only a way to deflate debt, but also levels our playing field with the Chinese and other economically predatory countries. And if they hadn't done QE? The dollar would be sky-high in value, which would be crushing American exporters - not business friendly, like Obama has been! Of course the debt is a concern, but Obama has done the best he could, given the other side has been open & honest that stonewalling and stopping another Obama term is their #1 goal. Reality is, the deficit and debt would be there no matter who was president (the Coke/Pepsi argument - they all want to be re-elected, which means they will not cause pain for the electorate). Paul Ryan is a blowhard, and a fool - the country would be rioting if his austerity budget was ever implemented.

I agree the Republican party is transforming - but when you say it is getting more conservative you are by default saying "further right" ... which by definition means it is getting more insular and conceding the middle to the Democrats. And there I am - smack dab in the middle. That's why they've won me - for now. And that's why they're going to win the election.

Going further right is not the answer. Taking back the middle by sticking to a moderatly conservative economic policy, rejecting the neocon policies and getting rid of the extremists, racists and religious fascists IS the right answer, and the only way for the Republicans to get me back. You're going the wrong way, Sly. Relentless ideology and rigidity are a sure loser.

October 20th, 2012, 4:13 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Quote:

- importantly - financial regulation. There is a reason why Obama is losing favor with Wall Street, in spite of the market's performance over the past few years getting them their giant bonuses... it is because they know that more regulation is coming. Like near-reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Obama is the only guy that would pursue something like that. The darwinist Republicans would just allow us to be set up for more economic bubbles and crashes.

Yeah...this is kinda a bunch of crap.

First, where are you getting the idea that Obama is "losing Wall Street"?

Wall Street isn't an monolithic entity. Many hedge fund managers, for example, detest Obama because they think his policies are hurting the general economy. Of course, many support him. Most bankers remain strong Democrats, including those who control Goldman Sachs.

Obama won't be able to reinstate Glass-Steagall, even if he wanted to. There won't be the political capital for it, Dodd-Frank was hard enough, and with the financial crisis fading from memory, there will be less and less support for it.

Lastly, your point on philiosphy -- as a strong Libertarian, I would support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and I think many economic libertarians would as well. But, it isn't that we fundamentally agree with GS on principal, rather, we just understand that the financial industry has become so intertwined with the government so as to render no longer free enterprise. When banks are labeled "too big to fail" and losses are put on the taxpayer, the banks are no longer operating in the realm of the free market, so why treat them as such.

October 22nd, 2012, 7:33 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

- importantly - financial regulation. There is a reason why Obama is losing favor with Wall Street, in spite of the market's performance over the past few years getting them their giant bonuses... it is because they know that more regulation is coming. Like near-reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Obama is the only guy that would pursue something like that. The darwinist Republicans would just allow us to be set up for more economic bubbles and crashes.

Yeah...this is kinda a bunch of crap.

First, where are you getting the idea that Obama is "losing Wall Street"?

Wall Street isn't an monolithic entity. Many hedge fund managers, for example, detest Obama because they think his policies are hurting the general economy. Of course, many support him. Most bankers remain strong Democrats, including those who control Goldman Sachs.

Obama won't be able to reinstate Glass-Steagall, even if he wanted to. There won't be the political capital for it, Dodd-Frank was hard enough, and with the financial crisis fading from memory, there will be less and less support for it.

Lastly, your point on philiosphy -- as a strong Libertarian, I would support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and I think many economic libertarians would as well. But, it isn't that we fundamentally agree with GS on principal, rather, we just understand that the financial industry has become so intertwined with the government so as to render no longer free enterprise. When banks are labeled "too big to fail" and losses are put on the taxpayer, the banks are no longer operating in the realm of the free market, so why treat them as such.

Wow... a bunch of crap?

What is "crap" is your nonsense about hedge fund managers not liking Obama's policies. Name a few of those policies, smart guy.

October 23rd, 2012, 8:41 pm

Blueskies

Player of the Year - Offense

Joined: September 13th, 2007, 12:43 pmPosts: 2882

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Quote:

Wow... a bunch of crap?

What is "crap" is your nonsense about hedge fund managers not liking Obama's policies. Name a few of those policies, smart guy.

Yes, you made two ridiculous claims and offered no evidence for them: (You're full of it until you prove otherwise.)

1) Obama is "losing Wall Street" (whatever Wall Street is)2) Obama would push for/have a decent shot at reinstating Glass-Steagall (he won't push for it, and even if he did, he wouldn't get it passed.)

I'm not sure about what you mean by that last sentence. Policies in general that Obama has pushed for/enacted?

There are many hedge fund managers that don't like Obama's general economic stances, spending, Obamacare etc. Leon Cooperman, for example, has a hedge fund that has $7B+ AUM and he appears on CNBC almost weekly to rail against Obama. Of course, there are opposites -- Jim Chanos, Carl Icahn are both strong Democrats.

But what exactly entails "Wall Street" in your mind? The major banks? Hedge funds? Asset management companies like Blackrock and Franklin Templeton? What about research houses? The exchanges themselves? What about the financial media like the WSJ? What about all that trading that goes on in Chicago?

All I ask is that you refrain from making broad sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. Otherwise, yes, you're full of crap.

I.E., with all due respect, Obama is not a "moderate". You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it a reality or factual. For instance, taking over the auto industry is not "moderate". Taking over the health care industry is not "moderate". Supporting gay marriage is not "moderate". Being against voter ID laws is not "moderate". Attempting to cover-up the fiasco in Libya is not "moderate". Enhancing the role of government in our daily lives is not "moderate". Increasing the deficit by over $1 Trillion per year is not "moderate". Not advancing a budget for over three years is not "moderate". Shall I go on?

The truth of the matter is that there is little to no difference between the policies of the Democratic Socialists in Europe and the Democratic party within the US. Look them up to see for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, the only MAJOR difference is that the socialists in Europe admit who and what they are, while those in the USA do not. Does any sane individual want to follow the same path as Europe? I certainly hope not.

_________________

October 29th, 2012, 5:36 am

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

slybri19 wrote:

I.E., with all due respect, Obama is not a "moderate". You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it a reality or factual. For instance, taking over the auto industry is not "moderate". Taking over the health care industry is not "moderate". Supporting gay marriage is not "moderate". Being against voter ID laws is not "moderate". Attempting to cover-up the fiasco in Libya is not "moderate". Enhancing the role of government in our daily lives is not "moderate". Increasing the deficit by over $1 Trillion per year is not "moderate". Not advancing a budget for over three years is not "moderate". Shall I go on?

The truth of the matter is that there is little to no difference between the policies of the Democratic Socialists in Europe and the Democratic party within the US. Look them up to see for yourself. As far as I'm concerned, the only MAJOR difference is that the socialists in Europe admit who and what they are, while those in the USA do not. Does any sane individual want to follow the same path as Europe? I certainly hope not.

Yes he is. It is the opposite - you saying he's extreme doesn't make it so.

- he did not take over the auto industry - they're all public companies... what the heck are you talking about? - he did not take over the healthcare industry - the legislation is REGULATION of private industry, and the entire healthcare system from docs to hospitals to insurance companies are all PRIVATE. It is not socialized medicine, or like Canada or any other single-payer country. The picture you paint is just completely wrong.- Voter ID stuff = voter suppression. There's no evidence of voter fraud.... it is a solution in search of a problem. Fearmongering. Racist. The courts all over the country agree. - Libya ... it has come out that it was CIA involvement that grayed the story, and made them cautious about what they said. Regardless... to elevate that to the level of not electing a president, after the evidence of the Bush admins blundering of intelligence before 9/11/01 is ridiculous. - You offer no context in the comments about the debt. That is a function of a giant, lingering recession that was caused by a financial crisis. Do you know the average length of recessions caused by financial crises, over the history of western civilization? MUCH longer than we've had - because of the government and the Fed doing the right things. You either don't know much about finance and economics, or you're just being dishonest here.

No - don't go on. America is not turning Socialist, just because of a few regulations that ensure sick and poor people have health care. Sheesh. Your positions are all wrong, and full of ridiculous hyperbole. The election pretty much proved that Americans not only don't agree with the stuff you say, but are getting quite sick of Tea Partiers, Religious conservatives, and their agendas. The Democrats own the center of the political spectrum (where the moderates are), and the Republican's only chance is to dump the extremists and move to the center where the vast majority of Republican Presidents in history resided, politically. Like I said before - your party is doomed, and that is precisely because of far-right group that you are actually so enthused to be part of. The far right is the problem - not the solution.

November 10th, 2012, 5:25 pm

regularjoe12

Off. Coordinator – Joe Lombardi

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 amPosts: 4006Location: Davison Mi

Re: cost rx drugs without insurance

Deleted

_________________2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion

Last edited by regularjoe12 on November 18th, 2012, 12:01 am, edited 3 times in total.

November 16th, 2012, 4:15 pm

I.E.

Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pmPosts: 408

Re: Right-wing radio: Romney loses, GOP dies

Blueskies wrote:

Quote:

Wow... a bunch of crap?

What is "crap" is your nonsense about hedge fund managers not liking Obama's policies. Name a few of those policies, smart guy.

Yes, you made two ridiculous claims and offered no evidence for them: (You're full of it until you prove otherwise.)

1) Obama is "losing Wall Street" (whatever Wall Street is)2) Obama would push for/have a decent shot at reinstating Glass-Steagall (he won't push for it, and even if he did, he wouldn't get it passed.)

I'm not sure about what you mean by that last sentence. Policies in general that Obama has pushed for/enacted?

There are many hedge fund managers that don't like Obama's general economic stances, spending, Obamacare etc. Leon Cooperman, for example, has a hedge fund that has $7B+ AUM and he appears on CNBC almost weekly to rail against Obama. Of course, there are opposites -- Jim Chanos, Carl Icahn are both strong Democrats.

But what exactly entails "Wall Street" in your mind? The major banks? Hedge funds? Asset management companies like Blackrock and Franklin Templeton? What about research houses? The exchanges themselves? What about the financial media like the WSJ? What about all that trading that goes on in Chicago?

All I ask is that you refrain from making broad sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims. Otherwise, yes, you're full of crap.

Overdue answer on this - sorry, just saw it.

By "wall street", I mean the exact same thing that the media do when they use the same term (it is NOT unusual to use that term, generically, for the financial industry). AND it is well-known (maybe to everyone but you) that Obama raised about 1/10 of the campaign cash from "wall street" this past election as he did the first time. If that doesn't tell you about their trepidation about the guy... well, that's just your point of view I guess.